GENERAL46848

• Permit No: M2001022
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 11/29/2004
• Doc Name: Decision Doc. from ACOE on 404 Wetlands Permit
• From: ACOE
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

easements and none are willing to take a parcel ofsuch a relatively small size that is wetland and regulated
by the Corps/EPA. The Corps will require a deed restriction on the property to achieve the desired result of
protection of the mitigation wetlands, and this will be implemented as a special condition.
18 Sept 2003
Due to staffing and budget constraints, the Service has not visited the project site, nor aze we able to provide
substantial comments on the subject application at this time. However, we have reviewed comments submitted
by Glenn Rodriguez of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Based on his comments and the
presumption that alternatives exist tonon-water dependent activity (aggregate mining) impacting wetlands, the
Service recommends that no permit be issued for the subject work until such time as the issues presented by EPA
are addressed. Depending on staffing considerations, the Service may be able to provide more thorough review
as project plans develop. If the Service can be of further assistance, please contact Peter Plage of this office at
[phone].
The Corps has noted the Service's concerns regarding non-water dependency of the project purpose. Avoidance
and minimization has been demonstrated, and compensatory mitigation for lost wetlands will be required as a
special condition. Additionally, The Corps has requested concurrence on a decision of no effect for depletions
issues on the South Platte River in Nebraska. See Attachment 11 for a-mail correspondence regarding this.
18 Sept 2003
1. Please provide drawings of all altemarives considered (hand-drawn is acceptable).
Applicant did provide drawings that show all alternatives. See the alternatives analysis section of this
decision document.
2. Please describe a deed restriction that can be established for the mitigated wetlands.
The Carps developed a sample of an acceptable deed restriction for the property, which was acceptable to the
applicant.
3. Consider additional willow plantings with noxious weed management along Big Thompson River as discussed
at the site meeting.
The willow planting will take place after ce114 is reclaimed and cattle's grazing has ceased. Special
Condition F will require this. The applicant will not be required to monitor these willows since it is not
specifically counted towards mitigation.
4. During the permit review process, it was noficed that only impacts to jurisdictional wetlands were considered
and presented in the application. The Corps of Engineers, with regard to NEPA, must consider both direct and
indirect impacts to all aquatic resources (wetlands) on the site. What are the impacts to all wetlands on site,
regazdless of jurisdiction?
6.54 acre of impacts to jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands.
The applicant has proposed 7.05 acre of newly created, on-site, in-kind wetland mitigation. This falls short of
7.82 acres of impacts. It has been a standazd requirement of the Corps to replace impacted wetlands at a one
to one ratio. Preservation of the existing undisturbed wetlands can be credited towazds mitigation at a 1 to 10
ratio. Since 22.88 acres of wetlands will be undisturbed at the site, the applicant can agree to preserve these
wetlands and receive a 2.28-acre credit towazds the mitigation plan that would result in a total of 9.33 acres of
mitigation, which would be considered acceptable to the Corps.
Project: Green & Croissant Aggregate Mining Applinn[t Loveland Ready Mix, lnc. Pg 1S of 53
Corps File Yo: 200180205 Waterway: Big Thompson Wetlands. Weld Counry, CO